Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-15 Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel MinutesPenjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel Friday, April 15, 2010 @ 12:00pm Council Chambers, City Hall Minutes The PenjAawcc watershed Climb Review Panel met at City Hall at 12:00pm. In attendance were panel members John Cashwell, Tom Davis, lames Gerety, Benita Deschaine, George Elliott, and Valerie Carter, and staff members Paul Nickles, and Sean Gambrel. Six members of the Citizen Review Panel were in attendance, one below the majority required for a quorum. 1. Approval of Minutes Approval of minutes was put off until the bake meeting. 2. Billing Decisions The members who were present elected to discuss the Impervious Areas FAQ paper There was a discussion about who should pay a stormwater fee, an owner of property or its lessee. The cost of renegotiation of contracts was mentioned, and questions asked about who is Ratable and who is on the tax record Assessing the fee M the taxable owner of record was mage ted. The question of who is charged for sewer and water service also arose. Another comment was that R makes sense to charge the owner, as impervious cover does not change A discussion of how GIS determines imperviouscover followed. It was suggested that the FAQ define what an ERU Is. Concerning athletic that, no mention is made of how Astroturf is dealt with There was support for charging the State for state mads maintained by the City The suggestion was made to call Lewiston to see how they have dealt with this issue. After some discussion, there was support for charging for ERUs based on rounding to the nearest ptld" of an ERU. There was support for charging all single-family homes a single ERU, given that they wouldn't pay much more in any event. For other bulldings, such as duplexes and commercial units, the number of ERUs should be calculated Duplexes and similar structures will not come in at much more than one ERU anyway. 7 Rural parcels with lots of well -buffered Impervious cover should be treated in the same manner as other parcels. A single mobile home, not part of a mobile home park, should be treated as any other single-family home. A mobile home park should be measured based on ERUs as any other property would be. Owners of private roads should pay based on their impervious cover; the difference between a private road and a driveway should be based on the degnhi0ns found in the Use of ordinances. The question was raised as to how farms will be treated It was recommended that the GIS data be examined in order to see If this is an Issue. A distinction was drawn between agricultural land and dirt not used for farming. It was opined that a single-family home with some land used for haying or similar purposes should fall under the single-family home standard There was also a distinction made between a working farm and a bobby farm. 3. Credits The discussion of a potential credit system was deferred until the next meeting. 4. Other Business The question of a city-wide CRP was raised This has never been enacted, but could be brought back before the CRP. The status of the vice -chair was also inquired about; this will need to go to Council. A recommendation was made that an annual report be done in some fashion, perhaps an executive overview to capture what the CRP has cone. Wendy Warren will be workingonthis. There was also support for having the City Manager come to a CRP meeting.